Warning: Politics

[ScottS]

I can't believe that a motion to Refer the Resolution H.RES.799
Title: Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors to the House Judiciary Committee made it through the House with nary a rumble from the press!

This was a real live edge-of-your-seat procedural battle. Kucinich put forth the original resolution, as he is wont to do now and again. The majority leader, Hoyer, immediately moved to table this, saying that impeachment was not on the Democratic Agenda. The Republicans rallied, saying basically "you guys want to do this, lets do it" in effort to call the Dems bluff, so the motion to table failed, with 135 Democratic Ayes, 86 Dem Nays, and 165 Republican Nays!! Now the House was officially stuck having this discussion.

Eventually, this got sorted out by a motion to Refer, which actually Passed with 218 Ayes (214 Dem, 4 Rep).

One wonders about how Cheney feels about the Republicans choosing this particular opportunity to make a point. I can't believe that he wasn't even asked for a statement, so far as I can tell.

 

[liege]

I believe it was a procedure to force the majority party into disclosing, by official vote, what side of the fence one was on in regards to impeaching the vice-president. People were switching their votes all over the place on both sides. I don't think Cheney really cares about this whole thing. He's too busy raking in the bucks from Halliburton and the insurance policy he and Condi took out on the WTC one week prior to 9-11. There are people who actually believe this...

 

[ScottS]

I don't believe the insurance thing, but I do believe the bucks from Halliburton. His stock holdings are a matter of public record. He was the first guy in a long time to refuse to put his holdings into blind trust, in fact.

 

[liege]

I think all he has is stock options ( a whole bunch of them) that he either can't or has pledged not to exercise until he is out of office. Halliburton made a ton of money for its investors under the Clinton administration also. They're one of the few companies that can do what it is they do.

PS. I wasn't saying that you believed that insurance thing. Sorry if it sounded that way. But Moe in Cleveland does. He was on Rush yesterday eloquently explaining his "facts".

 

[moses]

Total silliness in my liberal mind.

I mean, really. The logical thing is to dump the stupid thing, but everybody has to posture in one way or the other. (Which of course applies to it coming up in the first place.)

-Mo

 

[liege]

Mo, you sure moved out of Cleveland quick!

 

[moses]

Mo, you sure moved out of Cleveland quick!

Um, I don't remember ever being in Cleveland....?

-Mo

 

[ScottS]

I think all he has is stock options ( a whole bunch of them) that he either can't or has pledged not to exercise until he is out of office. Halliburton made a ton of money for its investors under the Clinton administration also. They're one of the few companies that can do what it is they do.

PS. I wasn't saying that you believed that insurance thing. Sorry if it sounded that way. But Moe in Cleveland does. He was on Rush yesterday eloquently explaining his "facts".

Cheney at more than $18 million in options worth more than $60 million.

 

[ouch]

I thought all of the congessmen and senators were poor, humble servants of the people.

 

[Austin]

I thought all of the congessmen and senators were poor, humble servants of the people.

I think they are.

 

[ouch]

When I say servants of the people, I don't mean like the guy from Idaho.

 

[analog_kid]

I thought all of the congessmen and senators were poor, humble servants of the people.

I'd love to show you the emails I've been exchanging with my local congressmen on SCHIP. I've never exchanged correspondence with a person who could be a jerk in such a polite and composed manner.

 

[Dr. Mike]

I think it was a great political move on the part of the Republicans. A lot of these guys like to grumble off the record about the necessity to impeach Bush and Cheney to appease the people on the far left of the spectrum who make up a fairly large proportion of primary voters, without having to **** them off by actually saying that, no, they don't want to impeach, because they really don't have a leg to stand on. By forcing this out in the open, and making everybody say their position, nobody can play coy anymore and try to have it both ways. The same was true when they forced a vote on whether or not to cut funding for Iraq. It failed. This will fail, too, but it will be informative. Ultimately, though, it is just Kucinich trying to draw more attention to himself. He doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell, but he likes to run every once in a while for the highest office in the land and bring up impeachment because he thinks he is entitled to more than 15 minutes.

 

[ScottS]

I think it was a great political move on the part of the Republicans. A lot of these guys like to grumble off the record about the necessity to impeach Bush and Cheney to appease the people on the far left of the spectrum who make up a fairly large proportion of primary voters, without having to **** them off by actually saying that, no, they don't want to impeach, because they really don't have a leg to stand on. By forcing this out in the open, and making everybody say their position, nobody can play coy anymore and try to have it both ways. The same was true when they forced a vote on whether or not to cut funding for Iraq. It failed. This will fail, too, but it will be informative. Ultimately, though, it is just Kucinich trying to draw more attention to himself. He doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell, but he likes to run every once in a while for the highest office in the land and bring up impeachment because he thinks he is entitled to more than 15 minutes.

The vote to cut funding on Iraq was nobody's success. It merely highlighted how we've been put between a rock and a hard place, and how we got there. There are no good choices. So far as impeachment goes, the investigations that were promised on the allegations underlying the resolution have really stalled-- not that they didn't look realistic, just that they never happened. If the allegations in the Resolution are true, impeachment is clearly called for-- I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

Let's put things in perspective-- the country spent much time and money trying to figure out if Clinton received oral sex. Shouldn't we be spending at least as much effort trying to determine if the Vice President lied to the American People in order to start a war?

 

[Dr. Mike]

The vote to cut funding on Iraq was nobody's success. It merely highlighted how we've been put between a rock and a hard place, and how we got there. There are no good choices. So far as impeachment goes, the investigations that were promised on the allegations underlying the resolution have really stalled-- not that they didn't look realistic, just that they never happened. If the allegations in the Resolution are true, impeachment is clearly called for-- I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

Let's put things in perspective-- the country spent much time and money trying to figure out if Clinton received oral sex. Shouldn't we be spending at least as much effort trying to determine if the Vice President lied to the American People in order to start a war?

That is actually a clever ploy to trivialize the reasons behind the Clinton impeachment. Clinton was impeached, not for having oral sex in the oval office, but for lying under oath during grand jury testimony over accusations of sexual harassment. Notice he was subsequently disbarred. They don't disbar you for receiving oral sex.
As for the allegations in the case for impeachment of Cheney (and Bush), they simply don't stand up to the light of day. If you are going to impeach Cheney and Bush for "lying" to us to take us to war, then you need to add more names to that list. Bush and Cheney did not say anything more than Clinton did. Clinton maintained that Saddam had WMD, and so did his wife, when it was politically expedient. Al Gore also said so. John Kerry said so. Furthermore, it was not only the United States that was saying this. French, German, British, and Russian intelligence also believed the same thing. Furthermore, WMD were not the only reasons for going to war. Iraq was in violation of all of the UN resolutions, especially their terms of surrender following the first Gulf War. There are so many Democrats in Congress that would love nothing more than to really nail this administration over this issue, and are carrying on multiple investigations to that end. The problem isn't that they aren't going forward, but that there is nothing to go forward on. Everytime this country has gone to war, somebody has always tried to argue that we were misled.

 

[Dr. Mike]

The vote to cut funding on Iraq was nobody's success. It merely highlighted how we've been put between a rock and a hard place, and how we got there. There are no good choices. So far as impeachment goes, the investigations that were promised on the allegations underlying the resolution have really stalled-- not that they didn't look realistic, just that they never happened. If the allegations in the Resolution are true, impeachment is clearly called for-- I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

Let's put things in perspective-- the country spent much time and money trying to figure out if Clinton received oral sex. Shouldn't we be spending at least as much effort trying to determine if the Vice President lied to the American People in order to start a war?

I disagree on the vote to cut off funding. Those who want America out claim that we should not be there, that it is wrong. They believe that it is morally wrong to send our boys over there to fight this war. It is therefore morally reprehensible that they would not exercise their main power to bring the troops home. If you believe the war is wrong, and you have the power to stop it, then I contend you are as morally responsible for its conduct as those who choose to continue it. In this sense, there is really only one person in the Democrat pantheon of candidates that is consistent and intellectually honest about this issue . . . Kucinich. He is right. If you don't think we should be there, you can't continue to vote for funding. It is as simple as that. The complications come from the fact that they know this is not a popular position, and don't want to go another 30 years being hammered on national security like they were after Vietnam. But that has no bearing on the rightness or the wrongness of the issue, merely on political calculation.

 

[kwk285]

As a Libertarian that votes mostly Republican I like to see our congressmen involved with things like this. It is my belief if they spend a lot of time with things like this, it is more time that they stay out of my way.

 

[ScottS]

I If you believe the war is wrong, and you have the power to stop it, then I contend you are as morally responsible for its conduct as those who choose to continue it. In this sense, there is really only one person in the Democrat pantheon of candidates that is consistent and intellectually honest about this issue . . . Kucinich. He is right. If you don't think we should be there, you can't continue to vote for funding. It is as simple as that.

That's rather black and white for such a complex issue. Many would prefer that we had never started the war. Some think that given that we started it, we shouldn't have done it "on the cheap" and should have given it our all from day 1, instead of the half-assed approach that Rumsfeld handed us.

Now that the war is rolling, though, try not to confuse those who think we should not have started it with those that think the only option is to leave. As Powell put it, "you broke it, you bought it". Now, the defenders of the Administration want to make believe we're left with a black and white choice. I see us left with bad options and worse options--all handed to us by a severely flawed policy.

This is a Bush/Cheney war, sold to Congress and the American People with either poor intelligence or bald faced lies. We should put some effort into figuring out which.

 

[ScottS]

As a Libertarian that votes mostly Republican I like to see our congressmen involved with things like this. It is my belief if they spend a lot of time with things like this, it is more time that they stay out of my way.

At least they had time to pass the Koch/Abzug AntiDiscrimination bill yesterday.

 

[voerman]

That is actually a clever ploy to trivialize the reasons behind the Clinton impeachment. Clinton was impeached, not for having oral sex in the oval office, but for lying under oath during grand jury testimony over accusations of sexual harassment.

And the lack of accuracy in the statement above is a not so clever ploy to make the reasons for the Clinton impeachment appear much more serious than they actually were.

Clinton was NOT impeached for lying during grand jury testimony. The testimony in question was during a civil proceeding where he was being sued for alleged sexual harassment. Whether you like it or not, legally there is a clear difference in the seriousness of lying in a civil proceeding vs. lying in a criminal investigation which is what a grand jury would be in session for.

To quote an old bumper sticker: "When Clinton lied, no one died!"